Seekamp v. Dept. of Rev.

ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
TC-MD 250534G 	1 of 2
IN THE OREGON TAX COURT
MAGISTRATE DIVISION
Income Tax
JENNIFER C. SEEKAMP, 	)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff, 	TC-MD 250534G
v.
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
State of Oregon,
ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT	Defendant.
This matter came before the court on Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, filed
in accord with a briefing schedule set at a case management conference. In that motion,
Defendant argues that its assessment of tax and failure-to-file penalties for 2021, 2022, and 2023
was proper because an employer reported wages in Plaintiff’s name for all three years.
Defendant did not attach any exhibits to its motion.
With her response, Plaintiff filed a declaration stating that she and her husband “did
not—whether actually or constructively—receive a combined total amount of gross income,
wages, compensation, retirement distributions, etc., from any source whatsoever, that exceeded
the then applicable federal or state reporting threshold that would have obliged us to file a federal
or state federal income tax return.” (Seekamp Decl at 1–2.)
The court grants motions for summary judgment where the documents on file “show that
there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to prevail as
a matter of law.” TCR 47 C; TCR-MD 13 B.1 Where a motion for summary judgment is
supported by the documents on file, an adverse party may not rest on a general denial but “must
1 Tax Court Rules (TCR); Tax Court Rules – Magistrate Division (TCR-MD)

ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
TC-MD 250534G 	2 of 2
set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue of material fact for trial.” TCR 47 D;
Weedbucks v. Dept. of Rev., TC-MD 250037G, 2025 WL 1699759 at *4 (Or Tax M Div June 11,
2025) (holding plaintiffs’ denial that workers in their retail stores were employees without
specific facts did not raise genuine issue of material fact). An unsupported motion, however,
does not trigger the duty to set forth specific facts. See TCR 47 D.
Here, Defendant’s motion is unsupported by relevant documents. Without evidence or
admissions on which a finding could be made, the question of whether Plaintiff had sufficient
income during the years in question remains a genuine issue of material fact. The court cannot
grant Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. See TCR 47 C. Now, therefore,
IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment be, and hereby is,
denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties confer and file a status report by August 19,
2026, proposing another briefing schedule or three mutually agreed dates for a remote trial.
POUL F. LUNDGREN
MAGISTRATE
This interim order may not be appealed. Any claim of error in regard to this
order should be raised in an appeal of the Magistrate’s final written decision
when all issues have been resolved. ORS 305.501.
This document was signed by Magistrate Poul F. Lundgren and entered on
August 5, 2026.